↓ Skip to main content

Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Internal Medicine, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#2 of 3,897)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
134 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
254 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research
Published in
JAMA Internal Medicine, November 2016
DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.5394
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cristin E. Kearns, Laura A. Schmidt, Stanton A. Glantz

Abstract

Early warning signals of the coronary heart disease (CHD) risk of sugar (sucrose) emerged in the 1950s. We examined Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) internal documents, historical reports, and statements relevant to early debates about the dietary causes of CHD and assembled findings chronologically into a narrative case study. The SRF sponsored its first CHD research project in 1965, a literature review published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which singled out fat and cholesterol as the dietary causes of CHD and downplayed evidence that sucrose consumption was also a risk factor. The SRF set the review's objective, contributed articles for inclusion, and received drafts. The SRF's funding and role was not disclosed. Together with other recent analyses of sugar industry documents, our findings suggest the industry sponsored a research program in the 1960s and 1970s that successfully cast doubt about the hazards of sucrose while promoting fat as the dietary culprit in CHD. Policymaking committees should consider giving less weight to food industry-funded studies and include mechanistic and animal studies as well as studies appraising the effect of added sugars on multiple CHD biomarkers and disease development.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2,767 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 254 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Taiwan 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 248 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 46 18%
Student > Master 35 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 13%
Student > Bachelor 28 11%
Other 19 7%
Other 67 26%
Unknown 27 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 77 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 36 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 9%
Social Sciences 22 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 4%
Other 44 17%
Unknown 40 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5158. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 April 2020.
All research outputs
#109
of 14,561,860 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Internal Medicine
#2
of 3,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2
of 263,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Internal Medicine
#1
of 119 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,561,860 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,897 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 132.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,170 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 119 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.